Sentencing hearing for Oscar Pistorius

Oscar Pistorius offered $34,000 to the family of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp after he killed her, but the family rejected the offer because it did not want “blood money,” a prosecutor said Tuesday at the sentencing hearing for the double-amputee athlete.

Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel also referred to separate monthly payments of $550 that Pistorius apparently did make to Steenkamp’s parents after they asked for help. Nel said those would be paid back in full.

The revelations emerged while Nel was cross-examining a social worker over what Pistorius’ punishment should be for shooting Steenkamp. The social worker testified that Pistorius should be placed under house arrest, rather than sent to prison, after his conviction for culpable homicide, or negligent killing.

Social worker Annette Vergeer, one of four witnesses called by the defense, said South African jails are violent and overcrowded and that the athlete would be under duress because of his disability and fragile mental state resulting from the night he fired four times through a toilet door in his home, killing Steenkamp.

Additionally, Vergeer said, Pistorius — who, in 2012, was the first amputee athlete to run at the Olympics — has the potential to be a productive member of society again. A sentence of house arrest and work at a school for disabled children would be more appropriate, she said.

Judge Thokozile Masipa found Pistorius, 27, not guilty of murder, concluding he acted hastily and with excessive force, but didn’t intend to kill Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model. Pistorius could receive a fine and a suspended jail term or as many as 15 years in prison.

Pistorius has been sentenced to 6-years in prison for the murder of Re'eva Stienkamp. Far less than the 15-years maximum.

Pistorius is white.

Made me 'ILL'; hearing the judge's statement that his emotional display made her aware that 'he does feel remorse for his actions' ...REALLY? 
Great acting job there Oscar ...bought you a light sentence and you'll be able to ask for review in 3 yrs and be out before those 6 years are up ...when Ree'va's stone cold dead - no undoing that - she doesn't get a RE-DO on her murder sentence!

Original Quill wrote:Pistorius has been sentenced to 6-years in prison for the murder of Re'eva Stienkamp.  Far less than the 15-years maximum.

Pistorius is white.

It's because it couldn't be proved that it was premeditated.

I agree that it's too lenient though - it's only one year more than the original sentence. Will he actually do six years in prison, or will they let him out after five minutes like they did last time?

Six years. That'll learn him.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Pistorius has been sentenced to 6-years in prison for the murder of Re'eva Stienkamp.  Far less than the 15-years maximum.

Pistorius is white.

It's because it couldn't be proved that it was premeditated.

We know that, Raggs. That was the appeals court that elevated the charges from culpable homicide to murder:

Wiki wrote:In December 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the culpable homicide verdict and found Pistorius guilty of murder.

At issue here was the sentence. He could have received 15-years. Instead, he got only six. He'll be eligible for parole in three.

It's disgusting. And it is because he's white and privileged in this instance. I totally agree.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's because it couldn't be proved that it was premeditated.

We know that, Raggs.  That was the appeals court that elevated the charges from culpable homicide to murder:

Wiki wrote:In December 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the culpable homicide verdict and found Pistorius guilty of murder.

At issue here was the sentence.  He could have received 15-years.  Instead, he got only six.  He'll be eligible for parole in three.

I think it's because of the dolus eventualis issue. It's murder, but it's almost more like negligence and lack of foresight.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We know that, Raggs.  That was the appeals court that elevated the charges from culpable homicide to murder:



At issue here was the sentence.  He could have received 15-years.  Instead, he got only six.  He'll be eligible for parole in three.

I think it's because of the dolus eventualis issue.

Right.

Not long enough...


Strip away all the bullshit... he had the choice to either shoot through a door at the person behind it... or not to shoot and leave the building...


He was not under immediate attack at any time


He had the choice to leave... but HE CHOSE TO SHOOT!!!

Six years is a farce.
He knew who was behind that door....his whole story has been a lie.
Was it premeditated...as much as anyone who see's the red mist and deliberately murders someone it was.
I do believe he has felt remorse since....sadly Riva cant feel anything.

Syl wrote:Six years is a farce.
He knew who was behind that door....his whole story has been a lie.
Was it premeditated...as much as anyone who see's the red mist and deliberately murders someone it was.
I do believe he has felt remorse since....sadly Riva cant feel anything.

The court didn't say that he knew who was behind the door, and that has to be accepted. This is about the sentence for murder under the particular circumstances of dolus eventualis.

He knew exactly what he was doing even though he was legless.

Raggs... if you have time... can you briefly explain your understanding of 'dolus eventualis' and the bearing it has in this case, and on the judgement and sentencing for me please...?

Yes please rags. Tommy and I are too lazy too Google

My understanding of it is that the perpetrator doesn't necessarily actually intend to kill someone, but they foresee that their action could possibly result in death. Pistorius fired a gun through a door into a small room, and therefore he could have foreseen that the person in there was likely to be hit by a bullet, but he carried on anyway. In other words, he was reckless in the extreme.

Raggamuffin wrote:My understanding of it is that the perpetrator doesn't necessarily actually intend to kill someone, but they foresee that their action could possibly result in death. Pistorius fired a gun through a door into a small room, and therefore he could have foreseen that the person in there was likely to be hit by a bullet, but he carried on anyway. In other words, he was reckless in the extreme.

You missed your calling in life rags, you know that? I think you'd have made a great lawyer or investigator/detective. You'd have a dog called Bruce and you'd wear really cool red hats.

So in other words really, he was a silly boy who shot a gun and didn't think the consequences through properly because he's only five years old.

I thought it meant that because he must have foreseen the action of firing multiple rounds at someone through the door would have high probability of killing them, then it is classed as murder...?


He had the choice of his actions... he knew the likely result being the killing of someone... he decided to do it... he chose to fire at the person behind the door knowing full well that this would likely result in their death...


This is why the original verdict was appealed and verdict changed.


Aren't the guidelines for sentencing saying the jail term should be much longer?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:My understanding of it is that the perpetrator doesn't necessarily actually intend to kill someone, but they foresee that their action could possibly result in death. Pistorius fired a gun through a door into a small room, and therefore he could have foreseen that the person in there was likely to be hit by a bullet, but he carried on anyway. In other words, he was reckless in the extreme.

You missed your calling in life rags, you know that? I think you'd have made a great lawyer or investigator/detective. You'd have a dog called Bruce and you'd wear really cool red hats.  

So in other words really, he was a silly boy who shot a gun and didn't think the consequences through properly because he's only five years old.  

Thank you eddie.

Those were my own words, and I'm sure there's more to it, legally speaking. The court didn't seem concerned about whether or not he knew who was in the bathroom. Even if it had been a burglar, it was still murder because he fired a gun through a door into a small room, and it's reasonable in those circumstances to expect the person on the other side to be hit by a bullet and to die.

Tommy Monk wrote:
I thought it meant that because he must have foreseen the action of firing multiple rounds at someone through the door would have high probability of killing them, then it is classed as murder...?


He had the choice of his actions... he knew the likely result being the killing of someone... he decided to do it... he chose to fire at the person behind the door knowing full well that this would likely result in their death...


This is why the original verdict was appealed and verdict changed.


Aren't the guidelines for sentencing saying the jail term should be much longer?

Pretty much, yes. He would have foreseen the possibility that he would kill someone. However, he didn't actually set out to kill someone, so it wasn't premeditated as such.

No eddie... he did know the likely result... but at the time he wanted to kill the person in there...


And rags... that is what I've said all along about why he was still guilty of murder regardless of who he says he thought was in there... he knew someone was in there and he knew shooting multiple rounds at them through door would likely kill them...


But it doesn't give any reason for a light sentence.

Tommy Monk wrote:No eddie... he did know the likely result... but at the time he wanted to kill the person in there...


And rags... that is what I've said all along about why he was still guilty of murder regardless of who he says he thought was in there... he knew someone was in there and he knew shooting multiple rounds at them through door would likely kill them...


But it doesn't give any reason for a light sentence.

He didn't necessarily want to kill the person in the bathroom, he just foresaw the possibility that he might do so - or he should have done.

He wasn't trying to tickle them...

I think it really does matter whether or not he knew who was behind the door though? Because that proves whether it's accidental or deliberate.

Or am I talking nonsense?

eddie wrote:I think it really does matter whether or not he knew who was behind the door though? Because that proves whether it's accidental or deliberate.

Or am I talking nonsense?

It doesn't really prove anything. He said he thought it was a burglar, but it's not actually that relevant because even if it had been a burglar, he still knew that he would possibly kill such a burglar who was not actually a threat to him at the time.

Okay, but if I were Riva's family's lawyer, I'd have made sure I pushed for the fact that he bloody well knew it was her. Then you'd more likely get a more convincing conviction - yes?

eddie wrote:Okay, but if I were Riva's family's lawyer, I'd have made sure I pushed for the fact that he bloody well knew it was her. Then you'd more likely  get a more convincing conviction - yes?

I expect he did push for that, but that's not what they concluded as far as I know.

I suppose it's nearly impossible to prove what you think someone knew.

They concluded he is guilty of the murder of reva...

Sentencing guidelines say 15 years is the required jail term.

Tommy Monk wrote:They concluded he is guilty of the murder of reva...

Sentencing guidelines say 15 years is the required jail term.

Yes, because she was the one who was shot and who died. They can impose a lesser sentence actually.

I bet his father paid off the judge.

eddie wrote:I bet his father paid  off the judge.

Hmmm, that might be a libellous comment eddie.

It does all seem a bit of a waste of time as the judge only increased the sentence by one year.

Fifteen years is the minimum sentence for murder under South African law.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Fifteen years is the minimum sentence for murder under South African law.

A judge can give less than that if he/she explains why though.

And these reasons are...?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:I bet his father paid  off the judge.

Hmmm, that might be a libellous comment eddie.

It does all seem a bit of a waste of time as the judge only increased the sentence by one year.

Oops. In My Opinion. Of course.

The judge did seem to like him, even after the appeal. She always bought into the 'po lil me' routine he was pitching.

Tommy Monk wrote:

And these reasons are...?

You can read about it in this article Tommy.

Masipa said the continuing misperception that Pistorius had intentionally killed Steenkamp was something the court had a duty to correct “to prevent unjustified outrage from the public”:

She goes on to list the mitigating factors.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/06/oscar-pistorius-sentenced-murder-reeva-steenkamp-live

Original Quill wrote:The judge did seem to like him, even after the appeal.  She always bought into the 'po lil me' routine he was pitching.

Quill, why couldn't Riva's lawyers prove he meant to kill her, or at least that he went after her and not a burglar?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

And these reasons are...?

You can read about it in this article Tommy.

Masipa said the continuing misperception that Pistorius had intentionally killed Steenkamp was something the court had a duty to correct “to prevent unjustified outrage from the public”:

She goes on to list the mitigating factors.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/06/oscar-pistorius-sentenced-murder-reeva-steenkamp-live

Still coming back to his bullshit burglar story...


It doesn't matter who he says he thought was in there... he intentionally murdered the person that he knew was in there...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can read about it in this article Tommy.



She goes on to list the mitigating factors.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/06/oscar-pistorius-sentenced-murder-reeva-steenkamp-live

Still coming back to his bullshit burglar story...


It doesn't matter who he says he thought was in there... he intentionally murdered the person that he knew was in there...

Hmmm, well the court agreed that it was murder but not necessarily intentional - if that makes sense.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The judge did seem to like him, even after the appeal.  She always bought into the 'po lil me' routine he was pitching.

Quill, why couldn't  Riva's lawyers prove he meant to kill her, or at least that he went after her and not a burglar?

How do you prove something like that? I think that one of the issues was whether he was wearing his legs or not. If he had been, that would have suggested that he had been up and not in bed just before the shooting. That would have meant that he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. However, the evidence showed that he was probably not wearing them, and that gave credence to his claim that he'd been in bed and thought there was a burglar in the house.

Pistorius deserves the maximum sentence.

No argument there..

That milady judge could send you insane if you weren't already. lol .

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Pistorius deserves the maximum sentence.

No argument there..

He'll serve at least half the sentence, and he's already done one year, so I presume he'll do another two years. The prosecution might appeal the sentence though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Still coming back to his bullshit burglar story...


It doesn't matter who he says he thought was in there... he intentionally murdered the person that he knew was in there...

Hmmm, well the court agreed that it was murder but not necessarily intentional - if that makes sense.

It was murder... he intentionally shot and killed someone... forget about his bullshit whether he thought it was her or not... intentionally shooting and killing a burglar would still be murder...


I don't see any mitigating circumstances... just a load of misleading waffle...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Hmmm, well the court agreed that it was murder but not necessarily intentional - if that makes sense.

It was murder... he intentionally shot and killed someone... forget about his bullshit whether he thought it was her or not... intentionally shooting and killing a burglar would still be murder...


I don't see any mitigating circumstances... just a load of misleading waffle...

I thought we'd been through the dolus eventualis issue. You should read up on it, and then perhaps you'd follow it.

Murder is murder is murder...


I know what it means... I just think you are misinterpreting it slightly...

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The judge did seem to like him, even after the appeal.  She always bought into the 'po lil me' routine he was pitching.

Quill, why couldn't  Riva's lawyers prove he meant to kill her, or at least that he went after her and not a burglar?

How do you prove something like that? I think that one of the issues was whether he was wearing his legs or not. If he had been, that would have suggested that he had been up and not in bed just before the shooting. That would have meant that he knew it was Reeva in the bathroom. However, the evidence showed that he was probably not wearing them, and that gave credence to his claim that he'd been in bed and thought there was a burglar in the house.

Turn that on its head and say; they had both been in bed together and had a row and she'd got up and locked herself in the bathroom? Hence he had no legs